Damn guys you are so negative. But thats ok since I want to discuss something based on my 1st grade understanding of science; it's called quantum thinking. The Secret sounds like the same old bullshit in a new wrapper plus didnt oprah love it? It must be legit cuz she's rich lol

Is it weird that I thoroughly enjoy your books and get a lot out of them but find your online articles overwhelmingly depressing, negative and humorless? It feels as if they're being written by two different folks, at times. But I do love your books.

Bob Pugh said:Is it weird that I thoroughly enjoy your books and get a lot out of them but find your online articles overwhelmingly depressing, negative and humorless? It feels as if they're being written by two different folks, at times. But I do love your books.

That's fine. I make money from the books but none from the on-line stuff.

(And you're wrong about the on-line stuff anyway. Some of it is very good.)

What I find most interesting is that nobody ever points out or recognizes the hypocrisy in trying to sell spiritual health by promising such "material" entities as BMWs and mansions and "success", which is exactly what The Secret sells. It doesn't sell actual happiness or contentment, just more of the same shit that makes you unhappy in the first place.

If we were really talking about improving one's spiritual life, we'd be talking about why a person DOESN'T need these things, and how, in fact, most of the time the desire and quest for these things only make one unhappy.

Hey Brad! I've been reading Ted Biringer's blog about Dogen and Shobogenzo.He is pretty upset that contemporary buddists avoid the whole Enlightenment issue and concentrate on sitting.''In Dogen’s teaching on practice and enlightenment, he regarded any teaching that posited practice as a term indicating something other than the enactment of enlightenment, as in practice-and-enlightenment, or as a term synonymous with enlightenment, as false teaching. Perhaps this is why some contemporary “Zen” books avoid the word “enlightenment,” altogether—except as something to be challenged, and the word “practice,” is so profuse. Rambling on about Zen practice this and Zen practice that, it often seems as if practice has become totally divorced from enlightenment—diminished to a simple catchphrase, a kind of pseudo-Zen. Worse, when this misrepresentation of practice is married to a strictly literalist interpretation of zazen, it reduces great enlightenment to ordinary sitting meditation. If the true creed of Dogen’s teaching is; “there is no enlightenment to seek, have no goal except to only sit which is itself full and perfect enlightenment", then I would simply prefer delusion--it is much easier on the knees.'' It would be cool if you could comment on that.Thanks. Take care

If the true creed of Dogen’s teaching is; “there is no enlightenment to seek, have no goal except to only sit which is itself full and perfect enlightenment", then I would simply prefer delusion--it is much easier on the knees.'' It would be cool if you could comment on that.Thanks.

Hi. Interesting topic. Obviously I'm not Brad, but I too am pretty wary of some of the assumptions you/Ted indicate; the latter day 'Soto' idealism. To me it seems important to do occassional sesshin/extended retreats, where our stuff, our subtle and not-so-subtle 'seeking' and wanting etc, is presented to us in sitting. But it doesn't end there.

The 'just do magic sitting and nothing else is neccesary' idea is really quite removed from Dogen's thing of 'actualising the fundamental point' in everything we do. It really has to be done outside of what we think 'sitting' may be in our real, messy life and will neccesarily involve various types of effort... including consciously 'not doing' (Dogen emphasised 'not doing wrong' in relation to good conduct, the rationale being that right is already happening when we don't do wrong).

It seems strange that Dogen's teaching should be reduced to just one simple idea or just one type of effort, because his writings (taken as a whole and not read selectively/in a sectarian way) encourage us to take up all sorts of effort.

Substantially realising the 'non-goal', depending on the situation, may be dropping off the body-mind, the world, and sitting... or it might be grabbing life by the throat; 'taking up' and/or 'dropping' off... you'll see lines like this in Shobogenzo quite a bit.

The 'taking up' is certainly downgraded by the assumption that shikantaza is the more 'authentic' approach to situations which may really require a broader vision and range of action/reaction.

Perhaps enlightenment might be seeing everything as it is; being able to look at a cup in its essential such-nessy cup-ness, uncoloured by concepts of "cup" or even "cupness" or "suchness" - a world without quotation marks. But that happens all the time, you just don't notice it. You can't notice, not until it's gone. Gudo calls it the state of action. You can read all about it. It's not a secret.

Perhaps enlightenment might be doing the right thing all the time; never making a mistake. But the Zen masters of old say that's not it. "Mistake after mistake" they say.

Perhaps enlightenment might be seeing the fundamental particles of matter. Some used to say so. I doubt whether that's possible. And what would be the point? Nah...

Perhaps enlightenment is being content all the time, even when you're not so content at all; a kind of understanding and acceptance that you will only ever be here, now. Perhaps "just sitting" is the realisation of that; the practice of 'it is what it is'. That's how I see it - and how/why just sitting might be "enlightenment itself".

Gotta rush out now. No time to consider whether I've said what I meant to say, or whether I mean what I've said...

Brian's book title - in the Family Guy episode discussed in the SG blog - it reminded me of a work titled "Crush It!" By Gary Vaynerchuk [Open Library page]. It seems similar in sound - going by the title alone, at least - except that Vaynherchuk's book is real, deals more directly with business, and has a really cheerful, genuine side to it, that I can see.

I hadn't been familiar with The Secret. I have a hunch that the title of the work might be found to be particularly ironic, though. :snark:

"It’s extremely unfortunate that while people like Bill Maher and Seth MacFarlane will openly criticize garbage like The Secret and expose it for what it really is, guys like the Human Potential Movement, who are presented to the public as leaders in the field of spiritual practice, all band together to defend such nonsense because they understand how the economics of the deal work."

I can agree with that, wholeheartedly. To me, it's all the same gravy-train game, though. If fake spirituality is what one would be looking for, odds are that fake spirituality is what one would find, moreso as a mere social exchange devoid of concept or principle, except insofar as to "fit in".